Friday, March 15, 2013

Marco Rubio: Pro-life but Gay 'Marriage' by State

Florida's Republican Sen. Marco Rubio, heralded as a fiscal and social conservative choice for president in 2016, now stakes his political ground saying "science has proven that life begins at conception," but he has shifted from the conservative pro-marriage stance, by saying that marriage should be defined state-by-state.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference on Thursday, Sen. Marco Rubio asserted the right of states to define marriage — marking a major shift in the gay marriage debate.

. . . it was eye-opening to hear Rubio, a major conservative in the Senate speaking at the largest annual gathering of conservatives, declare: “Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”

Just a few years ago, that sentence might have read, “Just because I believe that states shouldn’t be allowed to redefine marriage does not make me a bigot.”

“Just because I believe that states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe that life, all life, all human life is worthy of protection at every stage of its development does not make you a chauvinist,” Rubio said.

“In fact, the people who are actually close-minded in American politics are people that love to preach about the certainty of science with regards to our climate but ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception,” Rubio said.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) threw some social conservative red meat to CPAC-goers on Thursday in a rant against Democrats who criticize him and members of his party for opposing same-sex marriage and abortion rights.

Rubio does not often speak so forcefully on social issues, but if there's any venue to do it, it's CPAC. His speech was wildly popular: he entered the stage to the first standing ovation of the day, and drew applause every time he took a sip of water. (He also made plenty of jokes about water, a nod to his awkward sip during a post-State of the Union speech.)

It was an interesting line. At first blush, it was an example of Rubio defending traditional marriage. But as the DC Examiner’s Philip Klein noted, “Rubio[s] emphasis on states rights to define traditional marriage (rather than [Federal Marriage Amendment]) shows how far debate has shifted.”

This at least, seemed like a big deal to me. It sounded like Rubio was making a policy statement. And this is an idea that is gaining currency. . . .

There are, of course, problems with this. Life is complex. If one state marries a couple, can a second state not recognize the marriage?

On a handful of the defining issues of our day, “federalism” is sometimes another word for cop out.